Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92181 Case Number: AD92158 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BRANAGAN BUSINESS SUPPLIES - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 472/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions presented by the parties,
the Court considers that the case should be settled by the Company
paying the claimant a net amount of #150 and that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be so amended.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92181 APPEAL DECISION AD15892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BRANAGAN BUSINESS SUPPLIES
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 472/91 concerning alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
14th October, 1991 as an office administrator. The worker left
the Company on 11th November, 1991. During the course of her
employment with the Company the worker was absent on sick leave on
two separate occasions. The first period of absence was from 30th
October, 1991 to 1st November, 1991 inclusive and the second
period of absence was on 7th November, 1991 and 8th November,
1991. During the second period of sick leave the worker visited
the office on 11th November, 1991 with the intention of resigning.
The worker informed the managing director verbally of her
intention to resign. The worker claims that the managing director
informed her that he had already sent off her tax documents and
that his actions in preparing her tax details was a clear
indication that he intended to terminate her employment before she
resigned. The Company rejected the claim. The worker referred
the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 9th March, 1992 the Rights Commissioner
recommended as follows:-
"I offered the employer a compromise which he has rejected.
Accordingly I must make a recommendation in accordance with
the facts as known and presented to me by the parties. The
claimant has established to my satisfaction that she was
indeed 'dismissed" prior to the announcement of her
intention to resign. She was denied fair procedures before
the fact of her dismissal. By way of redress I recommend
that she receives four weeks' net pay."
The Company rejected the Rights commissioner's recommendation and
appealed it to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on
27th April, 1992 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's arrival at the office on 11th November,
1991 was unexpected. The managing director was requested to
return to the office from a prior engagement. On his return
he was informed by the worker that she wished to resign and
she requested her P45. The worker had earlier made known her
intentions to resign to other members of the staff.
2. The Company was disappointed by the worker's resignation
after such a short period in their employment. Much time and
effort had gone into making the appointment. Training in
accounts procedures and word-processing had been provided.
3. The Company's auditor returned to the office on the
afternoon of 11th November, 1992, specifically to prepare the
worker's P45. The worker's P45 was posted to her at 6 p.m. on
11th November, 1991 from the G.P.O.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to her meeting with the managing director on 11th
November, 1991 the worker was informed by another staff member
that she was going to be dismissed. When she visited the
office on 11th November, 1991 she found another worker doing
her job.
2. The worker was technically dismissed. The paper work in
relation to the termination of her employment was completed
before she resigned. She received no formal warnings to
indicate that anything was wrong.
3. All sick absences were certified by a doctor. The
worker telephoned the Company everyday during her absence.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions presented by the parties,
the Court considers that the case should be settled by the Company
paying the claimant a net amount of #150 and that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be so amended.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st May, 1992 Kevin Heffernan
F.B/U.S. ------------------
Chairman